Mra4?

[pr00ne]

Lots of folk in this forum seem to be predicting the demise of the Nimrod MRA4 programme.

Back when I was in, or rather just leaving, Aunty Betty's flying club, that nice man Mr John Nott said in his Defence White paper that the future was Nuclear submarines and Nimrods and that he would order just as many as he could! He even lamented the fact that the production line was closed so making new build MR2's much more expensive. This was back in the days when the MR1 was becoming the MR2 and he increased the number being converted.

I know that was back in the Cold war dayd and that the world is very different now, but, I can't help wondering if we aren't getting just a little carried away with Fast Jets and their ilk. Japan has just approved it's own indigineous 4 jet MPA, and they are talking about a need for 80, that's EIGHTY!!!!

Apart from the fact that they are stationed at Ice Station Kilo, why the current downer on the Mighty Hunter?

[whowhenwhy]

The question posed by our friends in big hats is "where are all the threat submarines now?" Most of the USSR's old subs are rusting alongside. They've made a bomb out of exporting Kilo's but they've mostly gone to places that aren't really going to be a threat to us (I think). Besides diesel/electric is mainly for littoral warfare (standing by for correction), how useful is MR2/ will be MR4 in those areas? I know a lot of work has been done in improving capability in that area but how much???

[Vage Rot]

Check 'Janes' and you will see a whole host of nations that operate both nuc and DE subs! Whilst DE subs are more likely to have a mission objective in the littoral, operatin in that environment poses many problems. The Nimrod is as good a platform as any for operations in that area, indeed it is practiced regularly.

Besides, Ice Station Kilo seems awful busy if the threat has gone completely, perhaps the Nimrod doesn't just chase subs!!!??? Not saying any more on here but check the role of the aircraft!

As for the downer, it's all due to the project overrun and overspend, mainly through BWoS and bad management by the DPA (IMHO). The MRA 4 will be a good platform if it ever gets the proper backing, the project is only 8 years old and it's about to start flying- not bad really.

[Yellow Sun]

whowhenwhy

Most of the USSR's old subs are rusting alongside

I agree, but pray tell, what are they doing with their new shiny subs? It would seem prudent to make sure that we know.

YS

[Sideshow Bob]

Years past it's in service date, airframe still not flyable, well over budget, contract now for only 3 aircraft (the development ones), has to fly this year or it is scrapped. Wonder why we have a downer on it?

[maniac55]

SB

Because you don't have a seat on it mate :rolleyes:

Having seen the effort and progress of the first 2 development aircraft, I expect to see them both fly this year.

As for the Defence White Paper, the 2 main requirements were "Network Centric" and "Multi-Role", I suggest people have a further look at the specs for MRA4 before they predict its demise. Tranche 3 Typhoon on the other hand .... :hmm:

Still, with 'Trust me Tone' and his band they'll scrap the lot of us to help pay for deluge of Economic Migrants we're going to receive when the EU expands. :D

[Vage Rot]

M55,

True about our very welcome ethnic friends from the new EU countries! I for one welcome them with open wallet ;-)

SSBob,

8 years from contract to first flight is still almost unheard of. This is not a re-worked MR2 it's a brand spanky new jet - only the fuselage is retained. The bid was way to low to start with - that explains the majority of the 'overspend' and good old DPA have moved the goalposts on several occasions too.

Let me see if I can remember just how late and over budget the EAP (1983) - sorry Eurofighter 2000, sorry Typhoon 2005 is?? But then again - its a great little pilots toy to show off in the display season!!

[Sideshow Bob]

M55

I'm quite happy I haven't got a seat on it. The sooner it arrives at Kinloss the better, but I think I'll be retired before it arrives.

Vage Rot

Typhoon 2000 becoming Typhoon 2005 is still better than Nimrod 2000 becoming Nimrod 2009.

[Sideshow Bob]

One more thing Vage Rot,
Boeing 707 Concived 1951, Dash 80 first flight 1954, in airline service 1958.
Airbus 340/330 concived 1986, first flew 1992, certified 9 months later, in airline service 2 months after that.
8 years just to get the airframe off the ground would not be tollerated if the government wasn't picking up the bill. You can't blame it on the complexity of the kit either as the whole problem has been with the aircraft. By the way have they sorted out the autopilot yet. Don't much fancy flying an aircraft at 200ft with an autopilot that is porpoising +/- 500ft at the moment.

[santiago15]

SSB,

Do you really lock the autopilot in at 200'??

[MOA]

S15

Currently minimum is 250' VMC and 400' IMC on the venerable MR2. However I know of very few flight decks that use the autopilot this low. 500' in a holding pattern maybe, but whilst throwing the beast around, it's all very hands on. All part of the fun. :ok:

As far as I understand, for the new(ish) beast it'll be all autopilot. Will take into account wind etc etc so all you have to do is dial in the command track as requested by the nav and voila, round she goes. Should save the poor old navs, sorry WSOs, a lot of heartache as the flight deck again call for the steer to be repunched and still are 30 degrees of heading! Will take all the fun out of flying the 'rod though.

PS Navs, we do it just to remind you who is ultimately in charge!! ;)

[Miles Magister]

The Mighty Hunter has been a superb beast. The MR4 is fundementally a flawed concept. However the Government has been blackmailed by the good old US of A once too often so it will throw as much money at European projects as it needs to to get them into service. This has mixed blessings, lots of jobs but kit which is not as good as it could be. Jet MPAs are definately the way ahead and Coastal Command know how to do it properly, there is and remains a threat from all types of subs and we must keep the capabillity. I am just glad my Cat ran out some years ago as I do not wish to fly the missions on AP at LL without a decent Eng behind me (Or go on det without those salt of the earth guys to pay the taxi to take me back the block!)

I miss 300' in the MAD circle in cloud at night, good dets, great crews ( except stroppy TAC Navs and AEOs!) but would miss nice rich people paying me to take them round europe even more

Edited foe incompppetant spelling

[kippermate]

Autopilot. What's one of those then?

My first P1 wouldn't let me use it!
:ok:

[Ombit]

I remember a time, not too long ago when the Yanks asked for help in one of their 'Ops' because Nimrod could do things that their P3's couldn't. So we sent Nimrod to the good 'ol US of A to solve one of their many problems. It was a very successful trip if I recall correctly.

From Submariner friend - Bl@@dy Nimrods are a pain in the @rse. You just don't see them coming - where as P3's and Atlantiques you can see(hear) coming from miles away!

Not bad for an aircraft conceived in the 60's [Ed check dates]

I say bring on the MRA4 - Yes, the Nimrod needs to have it's avionics etc updated but it is still the best platform for ASW/ASUW bar none.

As for Ice Station Kilo, I met my wife up their and have since been touring the UK. I loved the base, the countryside and (some) of the people. Given the chance, I would go back tomorrow.

Yes, I'm biased. After working with them for nine and half years who wouldn't be? But I'm scummy ground crew and ground crew are not well known for their admiration of an aircraft or the crews that fly them.

BAe are the only hinderance to Nimrod, as they can not escape the Dinosaur way of operating. A FS Fairey friend was working with the MRA4 and complained bitterly about the incompetence of BAe. He is now working on the A400M project and says that Airbus are a much more efficient outfit. I can't help but think if we boycotted BAe for all future projects everything would run on time and within budjet.

[Ombit]

Just another thought whilst I was bimbling down the shops.

I am currently working on a training establishment and am at logger heads with my peers over one particular lesson. The lesson is about SAR, where the Nimrod is listed alongside VC10's, Tristars and E3D's as an aircraft that can assist in SAR activities. This view combined with the fact that much of what Nimrod does can not be talked about, explains why certain people think that if we need it, we only need a few.

The Nimrod's role is very, very diverse and is not limited to hunting submarines and ships or indeed SAR. It has arguably, always been (and will be, when BAe get their act together) the ONLY true multi-role aircraft the RAF has!

Do we need a new airframe? - YES!
Should it be a Nimrod? - YES!
Is three enough? - NO!
Do we need as many as possible? - Absolutely YES!

[Down 4 Reprogram]

If BWoS can get it flying, I think the thing will be pretty good. However, that is currently a pretty big if.

Note - by flying I don't mean a quick circuit with gear and flap welded down just so that BWoS get their next wodge of money!!

[Magic Mushroom]

Ombit
I would agree that the role of the MR2 is far more diverse than many people acknowledge and/or realise. However, several of it's current roles could conceivably be taken by other platforms. In particular, most, if not all of it's non maritime tasks could be assumed by a combination of UAVs, E-3D or Sentinel (assuming of course that they reduce it's current mission kit weight!).

Of these, medium UAVs are probably the most attractive option due to their long endurance and small logistics footprint (although they are clearly not yet mature enough to take the ASW/ASuW tasks). The only snaggette with UAVs is the need to purchase bandwidth to get the data offboard.

I hope that we do get 18 MRA4s. However, personally, I rekon that the MRA4 will turn out to be an MR2 with the MRA4s mission kit and sensors. And I really cannot see more than 12 being purchased, of whatever type.
Regards,
M2

[Biggus]

M M

UAVs maybe for some roles, but E-3D and Sentinel? Maybe in theory, but how many E-3D and Sentinel airframes have we got or are getting. I know you think the E-3D can do everything, and maybe it can. It might well be 'magic', but even it can't be three places at once!! If you look around the globe (all of it!!) at current MR2 Ops (not exercises!) the current E-3D fleet couldn't cover the commitment. Sentinel is very specialised, and no doubt the army will keep its tasking close to their chest. If a Nimrod is overkill for some of its current roles why use a bigger, more expensive to run, rarer airframe such as the E-3D. I would also think commanders would be reluctant to expose an E-3D to the level of risk that MR2s ae currently exposed to.

There are many people very pro UAVs, and they have an important role to play, but in combination with manned aircraft. Most of the criticism of MRA4 is based on BAes failure to get it working, rather than the concept for the aircraft. In my opinion the worse thing we did was call it Nimrod MRA4, rather than give it a new name. Most people just see it as a continuation of the old Nimrod (the same thing happened with the Hercules, ask the J model boys), whereas it is a quantum leap ahead with the prospect of successfully carrying out many new roles provided the RAF and senior officers have the imagination and vision to do so. It will offer true mutirole capability in times when we are looking for our limited number of airframes to fulfill successfully a wide variety of tasks. If BAe can deliver it to spec of course!!

[Phoney Tony]

The debate over UAV v Manned platforms has been discussed here before. There are still major issues with them which need to be resolved:

Where will we train with these things. Is there training airspace within the UK.

Is there enough of the RF spectrum available for use to be able to use them. Especially in a hostile EW environment. (The US were unable o use Hunter in GWII due to frequency clearance issues).

There are solutions to these issues but the technology is not yet mature (Laser comms etc).

Also shooting down a UAV is a measure the opposition would find an easier option during TTW, thus escalating the situation, and, as far as we are concerned means we do not achieve the mission.

There is obviously a balance to be struck, however, a manned platform capable of world wide, all weather, 24/7 operations with a range of ISR capabilities and effectors (Hard and soft kill) is a must.

Having flown many thousands of ISR hours over sea and land I am aware of the effects our platforms have by just being there. In addition we do as we do in war as we do on a daily basis day by day in peace.

The US MMA is the way forward and a large manned aircraft is the short to medium term solution (2030ish) is what we should be aiming for.

[Ombit]

Whilst UAV's can perform certain tasks such as stand off reconnaisance. I still fail to see that a UAV can perform all the missions that a Nimrod can.

There have been certain missions where a Nimrod was asked to do unconventional things, and these break's from the norm resulted in successful conclusions. A large noisy jet aircraft is much more imposing than a UAV, as a UAV is no more threatening than a remote control aeroplane.

To answer the argument over the E3D, When I first arrived at Ice Station Kilo, as a wide eyed LAC many moons ago, a Nimrod was practicing a flying display. Those of you who know how manouverable a Nimrod is will understand when I say that I have never seen an E3D move around like that! Those in the know, please correct me if I'm wrong but is not manouverability an important factor? Just an after thought, but I can't see an E3D flying at 200ft over the ocean either.

I still stand by my original statement. The Nimrod's role is so misunderstood, that people just don't understand what it does, hence, they don't see the point of it. A comment like the russians ageing fleet is holed up in port, and ageing diesels are being sold off to insignificant countries only proves this.

Alas, I also can see a future where we have MR2's with an upgraded mission suite. However, this must still be better than when the MR1's came in - nice new shiny airframe with an old Shackleton suite.

[Biggus]

Ombit

I agree with you that the Nimrod's role is misunderstood. I have some good friends on the kipper fleet who get frustrated that, because almost everything they do is classified, they don't get much PR and have an almost non existant profile with the rest of the RAF (being geographically isolated doesn't help in spreading the words). Most people think all they do is Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW), hence all the 'Russian submarines rusting in port so do we need Nimrods' type comments. Well, even ignoring the fact that ASW will continue to be important as more and more third world countries buy conventional submarines, my friends have been busier over the last couple of years than anywhen else in the last ten. They never seem to be in the UK, and THEY ARE NOT AWAY DOING ASW!!

I would suggest the Nimrod fleet is maybe a bit like the submarine fleet in the navy, they don't talk about what they are doing, but it doesn't mean they aren't busy or they are not achieving results!

[BEagle]

UAVs - even the Spams have lost a huge number through take-off and landing accidents. Suitable only for very few applications - and in any case, who the hell wants to be a member of the Royal Aeromodel Force...

Only idiots like Duncan Sandys really thought that 'push button warfare' was the way ahead. That's what started the RAF's downward spiral in 1957.

[maniac55]

I've heard this great idea about putting the MRA4 mission kit into the MR2 before but there's one tiny problem, it can't be done.

Unless of course you strip the MR2 down to the bare fuselage, replace the wings and engines........err hang on this sounds familiar. :ooh:

The biggest mistake they made with MRA4 was to use any part of the current 'Rod. You just know that some scrot of a bean counter trying to save a couple of million quid would have been involved in that thought process. Using the MR2 fuselage has caused so many problems and knackers any real potential for an export market.

Having only escaped ISK less than a year ago I know how much the MR2 needs to be replaced and if the MRA4 was scrapped what else is there? What would be the time frame for a replacement a/c then? MRA4 has to, and in my eyes will, work.

MMA has already been delayed and the front runner, 737, is 2 engines short of the required minimum IMHO.

Though I do agree with some of the comments about BWoS, some of their work ethics and intransigent mind-sets has my blood boiling on occasion.:mad:

Still could be worse.....

PS
E3D do the job of a 'Rod, I expect such comments from punters at airshows who know F' All, M2 you should know better. :E

[santiago15]

I hope the MRA4 does come to fruition. The whole project reeks of 'putting all your eggs in one basket'. If the project were to be cancelled I think there'd be a lot of worried people up at Kinloss. There is no plan B and I wonder how long the MR2 will last?

[Magic Mushroom]

Oh FFS, why can't people read posts properly before flying off the handle?!!!

Phoney Tony, Ombit, etc,
I DID NOT suggest that the E-3D, Sentinel or UAVs could supplant the Nimrod in its traditional maritime role!!! Therefore, comments about an E-3D down at 200ft over the sea, its manoeuverability, or the deterrent factor of a large manned MPA verses a UAV in a similar environment are irrelevant. The USN are looking increasingly likely to employ Global Hawk to supplant some of the the Orion's maritime tasks, and the USCG have also purchased UAVs for the maritime environment (albeit in a very different role to the Nimrod is used). However, I remain convinced that a jet powered, manned platform such as the Nimrod or proposed MMA is the way forward due to their speed and reduced acoustic signature.

As stated, my comments regarding alternatives to the Nimrod referred PURELY to its overland tasks. This is not the forum in which to discuss what those roles specifically are. However, just for the record, I would suggest that the E-3D could adopt only one or 2 of these. We may have a maritime radar capability, and we may have loads of space on board. But an E-3D could never replace an MPA, nor 'do everything'.

Biggus is absolutely correct to point out the fact that assets such as E-3's can only be in one place at a time. Likewise, commanders would indeed be very wary of increasing the risks to their limited numbers of AWACS, SIGINT and JSTARS/Sentinels. However, will these argument hold with the Treasury with the huge financial challenges that lie ahead over the next 18 months? Likewise, whilst the Sentinel could be viewed as a very specialised platform, I guarantee that it's role will expand very rapidly once it's in service, just as the JSTARS did. Sentinel's main problem about such task expansion is weight management.

The argument regarding risk arguably lends more weight to the UAV option. Phoney Tony raises some valid points about UAV ops in European airspace, and bandwidth issues. I would agree that much work has yet to be done regarding the legal issues. Were we to purchase UAVs, it may be that we have to maintain a sqn in the States for trg (just as the Singaporean AF and Luftwaffe do with manned ac). Bear in mind however, that assets such as Predator can be and are flown remotely from anywhere in the world. However, the technical challenges (whilst still present) are rapidly being overcome. Shooting down a UAV may well be seen as a risk worth taking during TTW to an enemy. Similarly however, I would suggest that a commander would be more comfortable employing UAVs at a similar time rather than risking the loss of a dozen + aircrew at a sensitive period. UAVs are arguably also more covert and 'deniable' in such circumstances.

Beagle,

Suitable only for very few applications

I am impressed by your Jurassic vision regarding the future of Air Power. Did your forefathers also argue strongly that 'the only use for the aeroplane in the military is in reconnaissance'?!!:rolleyes:

Yes US have had a high loss rate in their early UAV ops. However, this is because such ops presented major technological challenges and were often done in deployed, combat conditions. US Gnat, Predator, and Global Hawk ops over the last 10 years in Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq have proved the reliability and utility of such assets.

Ombit,

a UAV is no more threatening than a remote control aeroplane.

I wonder if the family of the Al Queda leader who died in a Predator Hellfire strike in Yemen last year, or the other targets of armed UAVs in Afghanistan and Iraq would agree? Clearly, Predator's payload is small. However, Global Hawk and the next generation of UCAVs will pack considerably more punch. The advent of the US Small Diameter Bomb programme reinforces this.

As Maniac55 suggests, the MRA4 could be a superbly versatile piece of equipment if it works, which promises to augment other ISTAR assets well, and also offer an impressive strike capability. However, unless it does work, and does so PDQ, I can only see some of its sensors and systems being integrated into the MR2. The question if that, were this to be considered, how many spare MR2 airframes are there which have not been cut up ready for conversion to MRA4? If the programme does get the chop, I would imagine that you cannot convert an MRA4 shell back into an MR2. Shades of the AEW3 airframe waste! The only other option would be to lease some second hand P-3Cs, Atlantiques or S-3B's. Given the problems with the MRA4, I often wonder if Shorts should have been allowed to develop a westernised Beriev A40 Albatross amphibian...then again, let's take another look at the MRA4!

And if we think we've got problems, look at the state of the USN P-3C fleet! Basically both the USN and our own MPA programmes have been in trouble ever since the P-7 got chopped.

Regards,
M2

[kippermate]

Hurrah for Ombit !!!

:ok:


( Or is he a spy ? )

:confused:

[Charlie Luncher]

M2

Once again we dance:=

Firstly I dont think there are enough rubber pants for your crews as I am sure they will fill them up just descending to 10,000ft let alone low level over sea or land.

Secondly the old fella sitting in your comms seat is usually deaf as a post due to too many Shack hours so that role is out.

Thirdly you fly a support aircraft and cannot provide offensive weaponry, and Im not talking just about the knockers or the rations on the kipper.

Fourthly me thinks you have been to too many powerpoint briefs where the words: netcentric warfare, force multiplier and jointery have been used by very blunt egg heads or staff college graduates.:E

I admire what you do in your role for those of us in the combat aircraft and think you are good at it, stick to what you know:ok: .

As for ASW it no longer exists but UBM is a new and emerging field:8 .

Now I will be here once you come back to earth after this little post but putting on my flak jacket (issued to combat crews) just in case:E

Charlie sends

[steamchicken]

Yes US have had a high loss rate in their early UAV ops. However, this is because such ops presented major technological challenges and were often done in deployed, combat conditions. US Gnat, Predator, and Global Hawk ops over the last 10 years in Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq have proved the reliability and utility of such assets.

God forbid they might be used in "deployed, combat conditions"! That sounds as if it's not fair on the poor wee robots, as if their real role was exercise. Deployed, combat conditions are the test of quality. I'm fairly cynical about the supposed prospect of an air force made up solely of E3s, uavs and biz jets with fancy electronics supported by privatised tankers.

[The Gorilla]

Steamchix

You may be cynical about the prospect but I strongly suspect your worst night mare is the MOD's current sweetest dream!

Charlie L

MM's comments are most valid and I have to agree with him, it seems that a lot of what he says on here is being taken (deliberately?) out of context.

Yes the Nimrod MR2 is an anti sub anti shipping platform and it is a combat aircraft. No the E3 doesn't fly at 200 feet over the sea and can't do the nimrods speciality acts. There is a point though, at which both have cross over capabilities i.e. surveillance.

I still say and have said many times on this forum, the MRA4 will never fly. Even in the unlikely event they find a test crew with suicidal tendencies and the prototypes do fly, the Nimrod MRA4 will never enter a production run.


The Defence budget is about to be cut big time. The disposal of the MRA4 project would suit all 3 parties concerned. The MOD because it can horse trade with the Treasury over other projects. BWoS because they will stop being bled dry by a project that was doomed from the outset (Portillos baby on the cheap) and finally HM Treasury who, as always when it comes to Defence matters, win hands down!!

As for the Nimrod being misunderstood, well it's full of AEops isn't it? They are the most misunderstood chimps on the planet!!

:D :O

[SwitchMonkey]

Charlie Luncher wrote:

...Now I will be here once you come back to earth after this little post but putting on my flak jacket (issued to combat crews) just in case.

Of course, you won't be allowed to wear your flak jacket on the flight deck... not cleared for use on a MR2 unless you sit aft of the bog!:rolleyes:

[Magic Mushroom]

Mr Lurcher,
Where, have I suggested that an E-3D descend to 10 000ft?

Where have I suggested the E-3D flies at low level over land or sea?

Where have I suggested that the E-3D should carry offensive weaponry?

If you cannot contribute to intelligent debate other than by twisting the comments of others, may I suggest that you do not bother.

The Nimrod MR2 does several overland tasks at medium-high altitude. Indeed, some of those roles could be enhanced by additional altitude. Once again, I will state that it is only these roles which an E-3D could (and on occasion has) assume from a Nimrod.

The overland activities at 10 000ft to which you refer are the ones which I am suggesting that UAVs such as Predator or Predator B could accomplish. Moreover, an asset such as Predator requires far reduced logistics support and infrastructure (and is therefore far cheaper) in comparison to Nimrod MR2 ops.

Steamchicken,
You question the relevancy of my argument that UAVs have proved successful despite deployed ops conditions. Presumably, you are therefore unaware that the Gnat (Croatia, Bosnia), Predator (Bosnia) and Global Hawk (Afghanistan, TELIC) were operated in prototype form during these conflicts, prior to service release. Indeed, the Global Hawk is still not in full service with the USAF, yet proved one of the most significant ISTAR assets over Iraq.

Regards,
M2

[Charlie Luncher]

Gorilla old chap

"There is a point though, at which both have cross over capabilities i.e. surveillance."


Yes you are right most MPA can do an IFF check as well, hardly surveillance old boy.:E

Charlie sends

[TheSeeFarShadow]

You're all right about keeping the 'Nimrod' name being a bad omen. They should have called it 'Sea Sentry' - to pay hommage to the finest aircraft that ever was.

[Sideshow Bob]

SwitchMonkey

Best you check the RTS (service deviation 111). I certainly wear one on the flight deck. They did have to go and find a more spacious comfy fit one for me though. Time to go back on the diet!!

[round&round]

Magic Mushroom

Even though no one likes you at work or on pprune I think you're great.

However, as a representative of your life insurance company it's probably best if you don't visit ISK for a while!!!

regards

R&R

[Charlie Luncher]

M2

So let me get this straight - the E3D could only do one of the tasks of the MPA. May I refer you to note 2 of my original post also height is not always an advantage depending what you are using and where, but support staff would probably not know that.:E

I have a cunning plan why dont we modify our RADAR only slightly and replace the armchair flyers:= .

Now who can say that is not a contribution, you may also want to find out really what goes on in the MPA community not rely on rumours and old warries, and I'm not talking about those parties at ISK on a cold wintery night :ok:

[Magic Mushroom]

Mr Lurcher,
With regards to altitude, several succesful E-3D trials have proved otherwise for the particular task I had in mind.

With regards to the capabilities of Searchwater, I have always been very impressed whenever I've flown on the MR2 even in it's air - air capabilities. However, it's lack of a decent IFF capability, relatively limited range and the gap in coverage is a bit of a hindrance. Last time I flew on an MR2 was during TELIC. Very interesting mission, and well hosted by the crew, although it confirmed several of the opinions I express here regarding UAVs augmenting Nimrod.
Regards,
M2

[Charlie Luncher]

M2

You missed the subtle point where I mentioned MPA not just the old workhorse Nimrod MR2.
But I am sure your combat experience in that one trip will form your opinion for years to come, you may have admired the flexibilty of a manned aircraft that cannot be acheived by a UAV even those with a limited radar capability. I am sure that all the briefs will say how good they were as they can do all these tasks, they want more money and see a pot of money in MRA4 as I am sure do you.:8

Ask those whom we work with and they ask for MPA over UAVs or even those filled with armchair warriors.:ouch:

(last comment was interfleet banter):E

Charlie sends

[ORAC]

Perhaps one of our ex-543 Sqn brethren would care to enlighten us to the Victor B2 MRR sortie profile..... :p

[keithl]

That sounds like me - (SR2 and MR2). But what's it got to do with the question? SR2 radar way inferior to Searchwater.

[Biggus]

Gentlemen, it seems to me that this is going the way of the "Sea Jet" thread. We can 'debate' the pros and cons of scrapping/continuing the MRA4 until we are blue in the face, but it is a purely academic exercise on our part. The decision will finally be made by some civil servant/bean counter, and our comments here will not make one iota of difference one way or another.

Still, why let the voice of reason prevail. It normally doesn't, and no doubt like many of my comments, the thread will carry on regardless, totally ignoring my input!

[Magic Mushroom]

Mr L,
In none of my posts have I mentioned that the Predators radar capability is applicable to Nimrod tasks. While the RQ-1/MQ-1 Predator has an extremely useful SAR/MTI capability, this overlaps into the Sentinel's role rather than the active sensors of your own beasty.
The main relevence of Predator is in it's passive sensor fits. Indeed, unlike your own platform it has a real time broadband data link enabling customers access to the product directly. I doubt very much if any of your current customers are even familiar with the Predator, let alone seen it's product.
Therefore, my comments stand. UAVs such as Predator can accomplish several of the roles of the MR2/MRA4 more flexibly (in terms of where they can operate from and their more 'discrete' nature), more effectively, and with a considerably reduced logistics footprint.
The only advantage that I can see with Nimrod over an asset such as a Predator type platform is it's ability to climb out of icing, and in it's more rapid transit time. However, Predator B has already overcome the icing/wx issue due to it's far improved altitude performance. Once agin however, let me make it clear that I am referring to the overland environment. A jet powered, manned platform is currently, IMHO, the best option for maritime/Underwater Battlespace Ops.
Regards,
M2

[BEagle]

Well, not the SR2 Victor, but perhaps the Vulcan SR2 or B2MRR as it became...

Up to 40k-ish, then hours of boredom boat-spotting. Nav radar would look for surface contacts, then read details to co-pilot who had to write them all down plus the time. When there was a quiet bit, Nav team would then attempt to plot all the boats on a chart. This mind-numbingly boring activity would be done in in various patterns, but was pretty much the same. Occasionally you'd be joined by a disposable Canberra with its kamikaze crew; first they had to formate on the Vulcan and update their clockwork nav kit from the Vulcan's (by the nav reading out the Lat and Long..), then they'd rush of to do a 'Lopro' identification of a selected boat, they'd then call back the ident over the RT before they were shot down. Yeah, right.

Or there was 'Selfpro' - this time once the navigators had worked out a suitable target, you descended to low level to try and identify it. Futile but fun...

We absolutely hated this damn boat-spotting. Out on a Cyprus det we were tasked to do a bit, so lumbered around a bit up at 40K spotting Greek fishing boats, then down to low level to chase them. Unfortunately the Secret Squirrels of the MHQ hadn't told us what their ever-so-secret Nimrod MRs were doing; hence charging around at low level with our H2S banging away caused the Sovietski submarine they were shadowing to f*ck off in fine pitch. Our captain was summoned to MHQ, but replied that the crystal ball was a bit cloudy and if the maritime people hadn't told him to keep out of a specific area, then he'd do what he pleased. Later we were chased by an F-14 when we went to have a look at a Spam carrier, intercepted by Italian F-104s when our idiot Nav Plotter's northerly track straight into the Rome FIR from the direction of Libya triggered the Italian QRA.... Our captain thought they were Libyan Floggers, but what would you expect from an ex-Brittania truckie who hadn't the slightest interest in ac recce....

MRR - Nimrod, E-3 or whatever, you're b$oody welcome to it!

[ORAC]

The Australians have decided it's the way ahead: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8588269%255E421,00.html)

[Gainesy]

it has a real time broadband data link enabling customers access to the product directly.


Coo, just like tesco.com.
Perhaps the new recruiting ad. is v. subtle.

How about Enhanced Brand Loyalty as newspeak for inter-fleet banter?
:)

[keithl]

Beagle - that's why I didn't go into the Victor SR2 MRR profile. Same radar as yours, I believe, and all it could do was classify "Small, Medium or Large" targets from, as you say, high level. Searchwater much more capable, but I'll say no more.

BTW I was also one of your "Kamikaze Canberra Pilots" - wonderful fun provided you didn't take it seriously!

[Charlie Luncher]

M2

You know very little about my surveillance platform and its capabilities, whilst once I used to stomp around Elgin I am no longer expelled to the far reaches of Jockistan, I guess you just assumed.

Keep listening to the very interesting and unbalanced Powerpoint briefs, you would not want to tell of your shortcomings with a few contracts on the line would you?:{

Computers and technology help the sophisticated hunter to go about his business overland or water. A platform run by the Nerd Herd will be limited to their roles and flexibility but as long as the combat situation is not fluid all will be well I guess.

I would be very happy for a robot to do my job as long as I still get the doughnuts.:ok:

Charlie sends

[circle kay]

Just posted so Mr Luncher’s lattest is seen by all.
The system hasn’t recognised a new post on the thred.
New Technology eh!
:rolleyes:

[Charlie Luncher]

Just wanted to bring this back up the list for a bit of M2 bashing

Yes I know its an easy tgt but I'm still weak


Charlie sends